Only political stubbornness, not popular support or irreconcilable
differences, prevents the two-state solution from working, argues Matt
Hill.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza appears to be holding for now. But it simply marks the latest pause in an endless conflict between mortal enemies whose irreconcilable goals make compromise, let alone a solution, virtually unimaginable.

In fact there’s already a peace plan on offer that’s comprehensive and enjoys wide support, if only the two sides will accept it: the two-state solution. It would mean partitioning the land between the two nations living on it, resulting in countries called Israel and Palestine living side by side.

There’s already an internationally recognised boundary – the 1967 line, so-called because it divided Israel from Arab lands until that date – which, with some minor adjustments, would form a natural border between the two states.

Jerusalem would be partitioned, as it was until 1967, and serve as a shared capital. And Palestinians around the world who were displaced by previous Arab-Israeli wars would have the option of returning to their homeland as citizens of the new state of Palestine.

The two-state solution is supported by all the major international players, including the US, the UN, the EU, and the 22 countries of the Arab League. It’s also, officially at least, the stated policy of the current Israeli government and the internationally recognised Palestinian leadership.

What’s more, it’s repeatedly been backed in principle by majorities of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians.

When the sides last sat down to try and reach a deal – at Annapolis in 2007 – their respective proposals turned out to be surprisingly close (take a look here and here). In fact on the issue of borders they were able to agree on how to divide all but around 250 square kilometres of land – or 1 per cent of the total area of Israel-Palestine.

These facts need pointing out because Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists the conflict is "insoluble", and that aiming for two states is unrealistic.

And he increasingly has unlikely allies amongst Palestinian leaders and their worldwide supporters. Due to the perception that the "peace process" has failed and that the Israeli settlement project cannot be reversed, many campaigners now argue that the only worthwhile outcome is the "one-state solution" – a single, binational state across all of historic Palestine based on the principle of one man, one vote.

Never mind that this is like telling a couple in the midst of messy break-up that, since they can’t figure out how to divvy up the CD collection, the answer to their problems is to get married instead. It also plays right into the hands of an Israeli government whose chief aim is to stymie the creation of an independent Palestine.

After all, Netanyahu and his fellow Likud hardliners would much rather face a confused Palestinian movement in thrall to a chimerical non-solution than sustained, organised pressure to fulfil Israel’s legal obligations.

And pretending the conflict is a zero-sum battle between two national movements for exclusive ownership of the whole land reinforces the Hamas narrative of the conflict, which denies any possibility of compromise.

There are real obstacles in the way of peace. But they’re ultimately rooted in politics, rather than immutable "facts on the ground" or the ancient hatreds of warring tribes.

Current leaders on both sides may lack the vision and courage to go beyond beyond fragile, temporary ceasefires and forge a lasting settlement. But let’s not allow them off the hook by pretending they don’t have a choice.